W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: This may be relevant to both owl/xml issues: Issue-97 and Issue-109

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:24:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080625.132411.63833808.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: This may be relevant to both owl/xml issues: Issue-97 and Issue-109
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:49:51 +0200

> This document was just published by the TAG:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
> 
> I did not have the time to read it yet, so I am not sure it _is_
> relevant to any of the two issues, but it may. Better archive its
> reference... 
> 
> Ivan

It sure looks relevant:

> There's no requirement that the names in a namespace only identify
> items of a single type; elements and attributes can both come from the
> same namespace as could functions and concepts or any other
> homogeneous or heterogeneous collection you can imagine. The names in
> a namespace can, in theory at least, be defined to identify any thing
> or any number of things. 

Strangely enough, though, there is no mention of RDF or OWL namespaces
in the list of namespace collections in the preface, but there is
mention of FOAF and WordNet.  Even stranger, much of the document uses
RDF.

It is rather disturbing that the OWL Ontology in Appendix B claims to be
written in N3, which has neither syntax nor semantics.

peter

PS:  Someone should have copy-edited this document.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 17:24:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 June 2008 17:24:59 GMT